the mag put out by the official jerry lee lewis fan club in the 50ies was called....rolling stone!!!

RS sucks it's true, but Matt Taibbi's articles on the D.C. mafia are priceless...

I gave up on it when it started printing ads for American Army recruitment and placed (johnny One Note) the edge in the top ten all time great guitarists.

Quote
24FPS
' Just wish they would change their name.' - deep purple

So, should the Stones change their name to Rolling To A Stop?

My point. People comparing one of the greatest bands ever to a magazine. Sad.

I only know the german edition, and that one really went down after they moved to the german extremely right wing publishing company "Axel Springer". Since then you could find articles in almost any edition with absolutely no content. And always these articles with their right wing propaganda. Just like the german boulevard paper "Bild" from the same publishing company.
That´s the reason i canceled my subsciption.

Quote
deeppurple
John Lennon's last interview, in Rolling Stone magazine. A 30 year old reprint. I read this when it first came out. Not trying to start anything, I just feel that RS has become...a corporation. True, they have always been one. A sound business firm. Have to stay with the times. Just wish they would change their name. Rolling Along? Has a nice ring to it.

I don't know if this is fact, but I had heard that the original interview was a series of exerpts, and by contrast, the new one is the complete interview.

I believe I heard that on the tv news, but again, don't know that for sure.

Is it ironic that both The Rolling Stones and Rolling Stone magazine named themselves after the same song? The two do not represent each other, although some people might think the magazine is being paid off by the Stones sometimes...

It's not only the content that is shit, the Magazine itself seems to be made out of shit when you judge by the paperquality.

Rag

Quote
skipstone

Quote
Koschi
so what is a good music magazine printed or online in your opinion?

The recent Rolling Stone mags I've bought had Brian Johnson, Malcolm and Angus on the cover and then ones with Mick, Keith and what's is name, Keith and Johnny Depp and then the most recent one of Keith on the cover.

I've always enjoyed Q, actually. And there is Classic Rock:

Classic Rock is absolutely terrible. It should be called "cheesey rawk shit with no respectability".

I'll agree. But when they go off on a couple of good bands it's good bathroom reading - much better than Ronnie's or Keith's book.

Rolling Stone, though always to the left has become nothing but a one sided liberal political rag!

I have a fairly extensive collection of RS mags from '71 on and believe the quality began to drop off in the late '90's. It's always been an extension of publisher Jann Wenner(exhibit A:see the 5 star review of Goddess in the Doorway) and his modern tastes are suspect at best. For a great example find the story about rock critic Jim Derogatis who was fired by Wenner after criticizing his corporate suck up policies. I still get Rolling Stone but more for sentimental reasons, it's just another anonymous glossy with about as much cultural import as Cat Fancy.(David Fricke is the worst offender, once great reviewer who seems to be confuse Dave Matthews with Traffic) Plus the decline of the traditional music business makes RS irrelevant to all the truly interesting shit happening out there.

Quote
Ferret

Quote
skipstone

Quote
Koschi
so what is a good music magazine printed or online in your opinion?

The recent Rolling Stone mags I've bought had Brian Johnson, Malcolm and Angus on the cover and then ones with Mick, Keith and what's is name, Keith and Johnny Depp and then the most recent one of Keith on the cover.

I've always enjoyed Q, actually. And there is Classic Rock:

Classic Rock is absolutely terrible. It should be called "cheesey rawk shit with no respectability".

What nonsense. Classic Rock is basically THE magazine for the Kerrang 80's readership. It might not be your taste but it never disappoints its demographic and doesn't try to be culturally or politically hip. Mojo is also a good one. Uncut too (especially if you like Americana). Q magazine is the worst of the UK publications. I'm pretty sure they put Cheryl Cole on the cover recently with the title "Cheryl Rocks".
And, yes Rolling Stone is an abomination. You have to flick through about 20 pages of adverts before you even get to the contents section.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-12 20:21 by letitloose.

Quote
dcba
RS sucks it's true, but Matt Taibbi's articles on the D.C. mafia are priceless...

Right, Taibbi's has a balanced point of view. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAH

RS has a current story on how digital media is proving to be a less than satisfactory storage system. The Cult did one of the first digital albums in 1985. They went back to do a deluxe reissue and found one master was unplayable and the other had only 80% of the material.

For me, ironically, it was an article on the Rolling Stones themselves that degraded the magazine in my eyes. They panned the Some Girls album in '78, and then savaged the summer tour. I think they headlined the '78 Summer Tour as 'Shattered'. It was reported at the time that Jagger was pissed, told Wenner that RS would not have access to the band in the future, and RS magazine backed down and starting speaking kinder about the band. To this day they kind of wear kid gloves when reviewing new Stones albums and often don't put them through the 1-5 stars system they do with most new releases. Although I thought RS''78 criticism of the group was a little over the top, I thought it was worse to back down. There were bad vibes around the band in '78. Keith doesn't even mention the shit performance on SNL. In general they weren't playing as good. RS was just reporting what was going on but they wussied out.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
deeppurple
John Lennon's last interview, in Rolling Stone magazine. A 30 year old reprint. I read this when it first came out. Not trying to start anything, I just feel that RS has become...a corporation. True, they have always been one. A sound business firm. Have to stay with the times. Just wish they would change their name. Rolling Along? Has a nice ring to it.

I don't know if this is fact, but I had heard that the original interview was a series of exerpts, and by contrast, the new one is the complete interview.

I believe I heard that on the tv news, but again, don't know that for sure.

Yes,that is correct. It is a never before heard complete interview.

Quote
24FPS
For me, ironically, it was an article on the Rolling Stones themselves that degraded the magazine in my eyes. They panned the Some Girls album in '78, and then savaged the summer tour. I think they headlined the '78 Summer Tour as 'Shattered'. It was reported at the time that Jagger was pissed, told Wenner that RS would not have access to the band in the future, and RS magazine backed down and starting speaking kinder about the band. To this day they kind of wear kid gloves when reviewing new Stones albums and often don't put them through the 1-5 stars system they do with most new releases. Although I thought RS''78 criticism of the group was a little over the top, I thought it was worse to back down. There were bad vibes around the band in '78. Keith doesn't even mention the shit performance on SNL. In general they weren't playing as good. RS was just reporting what was going on but they wussied out.

I also remember reading RS's coverage which appeared derogatory towards the Stones 78 tour. At the time it was not well received by the Stones camp. From what I also remember, Rolling Stone in one of these atricles also implied that the Stones were also pissed that Springsteen was touring Darkness on the Edge of Town getting better reviews than them...

I haven't taken Rolling Stone seriously since they began showcasing half naked shots of Lolita via Britney Spears in her undies on the cover. Like, what was this magazine's fascination with this bimbet?

I love how anonymous nobodies make proclamations on the internet like their the Oracle of Delphi. Rolling Stone Magazine sucks some of the time, and sometimes it's great. Like a lot of things.

Quote
stanbooth
I have a fairly extensive collection of RS mags from '71 on and believe the quality began to drop off in the late '90's. It's always been an extension of publisher Jann Wenner(exhibit A:see the 5 star review of Goddess in the Doorway) and his modern tastes are suspect at best. For a great example find the story about rock critic Jim Derogatis who was fired by Wenner after criticizing his corporate suck up policies. I still get Rolling Stone but more for sentimental reasons, it's just another anonymous glossy with about as much cultural import as Cat Fancy.(David Fricke is the worst offender, once great reviewer who seems to be confuse Dave Matthews with Traffic) Plus the decline of the traditional music business makes RS irrelevant to all the truly interesting shit happening out there.

"The Infamous Jim DeRo Vs. Jann Wenner Vs. Hootie Story Via Perfect Sound Forever:

I left my job as pop music editor at the Chicago Sun-Times to go to ROLLING STONE after years of publicly attacking the mag for sucking because they hired a friend of mine as music editor and because, when I told Mr. Wenner (publisher) to his face how RS sucked, the response was “You’re right, we need to change, we need what you do.” When I actually got there, it was as if that conversation had happened in a different universe. Eight months of hell followed, toward the end of which I wrote the review that I am including at the end of this missive. Wenner killed it and subbed a positive one. Several weeks later, I got a call from the media columnist of the New York Observer asking about it. I did not comment, but when he asked if Jann was a Hootie fan, I said, “Jann Wenner is a fan of any band that sells eight million records.” Ran in bold as a pull quote next to Wenner’s picture. I was fired the day it came out.

(ED NOTE: The fact that Hootie’s record company buys a lot of ad revenues in RS probably didn’t help Jim either)

Lester (Bangs) was fired (from ROLLING STONE) in 1971 for writing a negative review of Canned Heat and “not being respectful enough of musicians,” and I figured, “Well, what is Hootie if not the Canned Heat of 1996?”

AMERICAN BLANDSTAND

Fairweather Johnson
Hootie and the Blowfish
(Atlantic)

With SoundScan-certified sales of 8.5 million for its Atlantic debut, Cracked Rear View, the humble South Carolina bar band Hootie and the Blowfish hit that strata of hyper-popularity where people who never buy records bought the record. But whether or not Fairweather Johnson ever meets those chart accomplishments and to date, it ain’t even coming close- it is certainly its predecessor’s artistic equal. Which is to say it’s an album full of what Hootie themselves call “silly little pop songs”- no more, no less.

Tunes such as “Be the One,” “Honeyscrew,” and “Tucker Town” (which was inspired by a band vacation to Bermuda) don’t vary much from the formula of Hootie hits like “Hold My Hand” and “Only Wanna Be With You.” There are insidious hooks aplenty and hints of Stax/Volt soulfulness courtesy of the occasional Hammond organ and Darius Rucker’s pleasingly gruff vocals (think Eddie Vedder imitating Otis Redding). All of the songs overflow with generic jangly guitars that evoke denatured versions of edgier Southern popsters like R.E.M. and the dB’s, whose Peter Holsapple is reduced by the need for health insurance to serving as fifth Hootie on organ, piano, and accordian.

These comfy, cozy sounds- the musical equivalent of Mom’s chocolate chip cookies and a big glass of milk- are paired with lyrics that reek of Hallmark-card sentimentality. “I thought about you for a long, long time/I wrote about you, but the words don’t seem to rhyme/Now you’re lying near/But my heart still beats for you,” Rucker sings in the weepy ballad “Tootie.” Are these the sweet nothings of a bunch of regular Joes struggling to express their romantic feelings, or the trite cliches of hack songwriters who just wanna get laid? It would be easier to believe the former if the band hadn’t chosen sophomoric sex jokes worthy of Beavis and Butt-head for their last three album titles (Kootchypop, Cracked Rear View, Fairweather Johnson).

To these ears, Hootie are the blandest extreme of a wave of bands for whom blame can be placed squarely on the Grateful Dead. The Spin Doctors, Dave Matthews Band, Blues Traveler, and most of the other “baby Dead” or “jam” bands try to uphold the Dead’s ideals of exploring diverse musical genres such as jazz, bluegrass, and worldbeat from a rock perspective, as well as transcending the everyday through a combination of hallucinogens, music, and community. Hootie doesn’t even attempt the first (though they do stretch things out a bit live), and they only succeed at the second if you consider Bud Lite a psychedelic drug.

But the connection to the Dead is there in a recording style that reduces American Beauty and Workingman’s Dead to their lowest common denominators: a down-home hippie folksiness, a lilting melodic approach, and, of course, that lazy, elastic groove. Hootie music never rocks, and you certainly can’t dance to it; at best, you just sort of do the awkward white-person wiggle so prominent at Dead and baby Dead shows alike. (Remember, too, that David Crosby, the Dead’s secret weapon on American Beauty and Workingman’s Dead, also crafted the harmonies on “Hold My Hand.”)

Come hear Uncle Hootie’s band, playing to the crowds. More than 8 million buyers can’t be wrong. Or can they?

(originally written May ‘96)"



Jann Wenner is a two-faced prick.

"HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAH"
Is that a "subtle" way of yours to express sarcasm? Stop crying (you'll soak you Palin poster). I was talking about what Taibbi wrote about Goldman Sachs...

haven't read it yet but intend on reading "Griftopia" by Matt Tiabbi. I guess it depends on your viewpoint, but its hard to argue with the evidence of massive fraud, corruption, and immoral but legal rule bending which has devastated the world economy.

Quote
dcba
"HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAH"
Is that a "subtle" way of yours to express sarcasm? Stop crying (you'll soak you Palin poster). I was talking about what Taibbi wrote about Goldman Sachs...

You missed the point. RS has become the bible of the left.

finally

I remember the thrill of owning my very first Rolling Stone magazine: it was 1979, at a neighborhood 7-Eleven and Jon Voight was on the cover. It had an article on Ronnie's "Gimme Neck"...
I felt cool, part of some vast rock and roll cultural universe....
I went on to subscribe through most of the 80s....and enjoyed William Grieder's political peices, but even then, started to see the obvious fraternity of "insiders". RS prided themselves on being guerilla, and, researching its heydey at the library, reporters like Ben-Fong Torres and of course, Hunter Thompson in the 70s kept that image in tact. But Wenner has always been a star-@#$%&. By the mid-80s, I reading Spin as an alternative...
Now, I like MOJO and Q.
I always thought the Creem of the 70s was more authentic and reverent, with writers like the great Lester Bangs. RS has missed the boat on many things because alot of what they do is politics and certain people will never make it on the cover because they aren't part of RS's heady community of syncophants.
There are certain artists RS never liked, or took seriously..they could be the biggest thing on the planet, but if RS deems you not "cool" enough - you're out of luck. By the same token, it has its favorites, like Jagger etc....who are always on the cover. It also had, has an elitist tone to it, especially in those druggy, counter-culture days where they sneered at anything outside the "rock and roll" box. I remember reading an article on Liza Minelli during Cabaret, and the tone was very condesending, like Liza was too "showbusiness" to be taken seriously or whatever... that was part of the cultural zietgiest of the moment. Alot of people sneer when RS puts people like Britney on its cover, but the magazine is supposed to acknowledge when something is happening. They also put David Cassidy on its cover in 72.Like it or not, Britney happened and a good magazine proporting to reflect its time should record that. Putting Britney on the cover is not the problem. That's being a true mirror of the times, the problem is when they decide who you should take seriously or relevant...and yet, their determination of relevance is subjecive.
RS has been shit.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-12-14 00:25 by stupidguy2.